Useful Searches

Badminton Central is a free community for fans of badminton! If you find anything useful here please consider registering to see more content and get involved with our great community users, it takes less than 15 seconds! Everybody is welcome here.

It is accepted fact that many players and fanatics have debated endlessly on various technical specification of badminton rackets without any definitive conclusion because many arguments were based on personal and subjective evaluation. To resolve these questions on racket performance and specification, detailed measurements of each racket and version are needed so that a consistent comparison can be made.

This is a series of presentation of such technical data of badminton rackets. Every effort is made to focus and compare one parameter at a time while keeping other variable constant. In my possession is a line up of all (well, from mp24 and up) 2003 yonex badminton rackets in brand new condition. All rackets are strung with bg65 string. No overgrip and in G4 grip size (with some exception as noted). I did not take measurement on unstrung rackets because they won't reflect REAL LIFE performance.

For the first comparison - racket stiffness. This is a total stiffness test, shaft + frame. Therefore, it is a real life comparison. I had referenced all the racket stiffness to cab20M. Since i do not have the original 2UG4 cab 20 with me, i chose cab20M because i believe yonex had kept the legacy and performance of the original cab 20 in their cab 20M with only difference of having Muscle power grooves. I figured that we all tend to agree that the cab 20 is perceived as a balance racket and most of us had used and come to know how a cab 20 feel. The term relative stiffness here means how much more a racket stiffer than the cab20M. For example, the mp99 is 5.07% more stiffer than the cab20M.

One big surprise from the test result is that the AT700 isn't extra stiff nor stiff, more like medium stiff. Another surprise is the mp33 is just as (slightly more) stiff as a mp100. Well, i'll let you guys/gals make your own judgement yourself. I think the test result presented below is self explanatory.

DISCLAIMER: Yonex did not supervise nor designed the test. Yonex is not be liable for any damages result from the use or misuse, directly or indirectly, of the data presented here. Ditto for badmintonforum members. The data presented in badmintonforum is original. Badmintonforum cannot guarantee of accuracy of data that may appear elsewhere.

Originally posted by JChen99 cooler, was this done on only one racket of each model? or several rackets/model?

Click to expand...

yes, the above data are for one individual racket, not mean average of several rackets. Besides, how many rackets per model per test is enough? The weight data presented as secondary data, it has no influence of stiffness performance.

The weight range of U,2U,3U,4U, etc (5 g increment) specified by yonex doesn't mean their rackets have loose tolerance, the range of weight of each weight bracket is more or less controlled by the grip size. A 3UG3 WILL WEIGH MORE THAN A 3UG4 of the same model because a G3 handle has more wood than a G4.

More your information, i personally have been using a 3UG3 MP99 for a 10-11 months. It weighs 93.9 g (with bg80 string though, my guess is that it would weight ~ 94 g if strung with bg65). From the table presented with a 3UG4 MP99, this one weight 93.00 g, a difference of 0.9 g (or ~1 g if bg65 was used) per grip size increment it seem. Since there is 4 grip size per weight (U) catergory, it does comes pretty close to the 5 g spread tolerance as specificed by yonex for each weight bracket. I have observed that last few years yonex racket weight consistency had improved year after year. The weight range within each U is mostly to cover difference of grip size.

How about tying a 1lb measuring weight to the end of the racquet frame (with the racquet handle anchored to a table or something) and measure the length of the flex? Wouldn't that be more standardized?

Originally posted by kwun cooler, you do own a cab22, no? that's is generally known to be a stiff racket, i wonder if you can take one more measurement and include that in the data.

excellent data, first class stuff!

Click to expand...

Thanks kwun. For that, cab22 relative stiffness as requested. I have also added the infamous blacken. BTW, cab 22 should read cab 20 power because that is the one i got. Technically, cab20 power is equivalent to cab 22

Attached Files:

Originally posted by cooler so u see, the range variation of 0.1% isn't that bad at all. It is small enough to be explained by the difference of wood source (ie, which part of tree trunk that wood came from)

Click to expand...

I see your point cooler
btw... is it possible that you get your hands on a CP/CN racket to do some tests? it would be a good idea since it could possibly end the CP/CN racket debate once and for all well... at least the rumors about it being "more stiff"

Originally posted by cooler I can assure all of you that the test methodology used is very standardized, consistent and repeatable.

Click to expand...

Standardized, consistent, and repeatable equates with percission, but to not to accuracy nor reliability.

We'd like to hear the details of how you measured the stiffness.

Also, i doubt that your measured stiffness equates to actual stiffness feeling. Presuming a shaft with the same degree of bending, a racquet with that shaft that is twice as heavy would be twice as flexible, and yet your rating scale would not detect such a difference.

BRL, i didnt say the stiffness data presented would be the holy grail answers to all question about stiffness. Yes, it is static stiffness comparison, it suppose to be a guide. I did not claim to be a dynamic stiffness comparision. If you want a dynamic review, go read the racket review section, you will see the opinions vary much much wider than my data on static stiffness.

Even if i have a $1,000,000 machine to do dynamic stiffness testing, new questions and doubt will come out of it. It will never ends. It like you asking answers to the 10th decimal place after i gave you data with 9th decimal place.

Originally posted by JChen99 I see your point cooler
btw... is it possible that you get your hands on a CP/CN racket to do some tests? it would be a good idea since it could possibly end the CP/CN racket debate once and for all well... at least the rumors about it being "more stiff"

Click to expand...

for cn/cp and jp rackets, i think weight is the important parameter to measure. The whole agrument of owning cn/cp and jp rackets is that they can withstand higher tension.

dont think so kwun. I got two mp33 and both came within .075% stiffness difference with each other. I had repeated the test twice. I even done gut feel flex test using my hands and it does feel stiff for a medium range racket. I think we shouldn't see mp33 as a medium range racket but yonex might want a light and stiff racket in their line up, it is just my guess. I have tried this racket and it is a fast and very maneuverable racket, very snappy, great for double. The performance (double games) seem to support the racket stiff and balance (to be posted soon)

Too bad i dun have a 2UG4 cab 20 to compare with. I only got a U cab 20 and it is not with me now.

Useful Searches

About Us

Our community has been around for many years and pride ourselves on offering unbiased, critical discussion among people of all different backgrounds. We are working every day to make sure our community is one of the best.